Are you like this face-to-face?
page 4

I feel obligated to reply to this forum though I have never myself gone into one of those threads raging my atheistic beliefs. If I have something to say, I say it, no matter where I am. I consider the computer to be just as real as talking to somebody face to face, because they know what you’re saying and you’re saying it none the less. So to answer your question, yes, I do act like I do face-to-face, because I see no difference between the communication.

Let me make an illustration for you then, and don’t take it as an insult, as your friends don’t.

Imagine that you and I are sitting at a table having a debate. I put forward my points in a logical fashion, and then you pull down your pants, bend over on the table, pull your cheeks apart, and push out a nutty brown loaf. That’s how some atheists act on the internet. I don’t care if your friends like the smell of your shit. I don’t.

oh look, someone has watched South Park!

but really, the amount of crap from theists will always be far larger than the amound of crap from atheists. please point to any such brown loafs you find particularly smelly…

Ah…no.

In real life i’m fairly confident the population of asshole-theists greatly outnumbers the population of asshole atheists, not counting what I’ll call celebrity assholes like pat robertson or Dawkins, respectively, who are about equal in numbers and attention.

Online, however, the asshole atheist population is the majority, and the theists are in the minority. I sympathize with mytie because what he’s describing is pretty accurate; most online atheists are blind jerks. They are incapable of any sort of accord with theists that involves equal respect. I well remember a thread awhile back where I personally claimed a belief in the human soul, despite being a nominal deist, and proceeded to get shit on by every single atheist on that thread, including many of the fine folks apologizing for atheists on this thread. Online atheists tend to have an exaggerated belief in the limits of logic to the point where one might wonder if they are actually Vulcans, except that Vulcans tend not to go in for incessant trash-talk as a way to prove their points.

In point of fact, all the positivist bullshit that these atheists depend on to maintain their arguments are the remains of a system of thought abandoned over sixty years ago, mainly because it was deemed too excessive to hold up to any sort of rational scrutiny. ‘Magical thinking’ indeed. Btw that term is extremely condescending when applied strictly to theists and children; I defy anyone to claim that they never indulge in non-rational thought, and even the craziest religions have their own coherent internal logic; it may not be understandable to outside observers, but it is not (or rarely, anyway) capital-i Irrational.

So yes, I can sympathize with mytie. But on the other hand I can understand why people are leery to acknowledge his point. First off, mytie is a major jackass himself and deserves no pity from anyone. He’s played the victim card way too many times to be particularly convincing this time around. Second, as I said, theists are the majority in RL, and they tend to be irritating people when they decide to express their beliefs openly. I imagine many internet people are from the US, and the US is the most religious Western state; so it makes sense to me that fairly nice atheists come on the internet to unwind, which they do by tearing into the often-moronic beliefs that assail them every day.

I understand it, I just won’t tolerate it. I mentioned previous threads before – when I first came to SD, Darkbaron and Spaghedeity were the high hogs of internet atheism on the forum, and they were complete assholes…in many ways I wouldn’t be nearly as much the jerk that I am now if I didn’t learn it from them firsthand. They were not welcoming in any way; they were trolls, and they poisoned every thread that discussed religion to the point where I – who, in RL am not really pro-religious at all – BECAME pro-religious in the threads simply because the alternative was so shitty. None of the atheists around currently are as bad as they were, but there’s lots in common.

Last point: Darkruler mentioned earlier in the thread that he comes to SD to teach, and that he believes many of the online atheists have similar motives, which is why they become frustrated when their ‘students’ don’t accept the lesson. I’m sure I’ve said this previously, but darkruler’s teaching act really fucking gets on my nerves. It’s an excuse for bad behavior, and I have no patience for him or anyone else who acts like that. I’m as much interested in learning from SD regs as I am interested in changing my POV, which is to say, not at all. Most people here, if they are being honest, will say the exact same thing. I myself have been guilty of teaching my ‘subject’ in the past, and I’ve found it to be a waste of time for both myself and those I was trying to instruct. No more. If people want to learn more about a particular area, they can go on wikipedia. It is insulting, I think, for equals (which, given anonymity, we all are) to condescend to each other without permission.

It is also dangerous because, of course, the threat of bias. I trust my phd accredited prof, for example, to teach me about modern philosophy. But I know my prof is also a Straussian and therefore anything she drops about American political culture is untrustworthy because it feeds into her bias. How much more untrustworthy could someone be than to be an anonymous internet person trying to win an argument? An argument about religion, for that matter? And education, in particular, is a common tactic among online atheists as a sort of final solution to religion, by the process of drumming out the dangerous nonsense and drumming in the cold hard facts. Except that idea in itself is a dangerous nonsense – it’s education as indoctrination, regardless of the ‘logic’ behind it.

I have seen two behaviours on the net
a) My god is better than your’s.
b) How stupid are you to believe in idea of god.
To be honest, I have seen more people exibiting behaviour b and I can count the number of people exhibiting behaviour a on my finger tips.

I feel obligated to reply to this forum though I have never myself gone into one of those threads raging my atheistic beliefs. If I have something to say, I say it, no matter where I am. I consider the computer to be just as real as talking to somebody face to face, because they know what you’re saying and you’re saying it none the less. So to answer your question, yes, I do act like I do face-to-face, because I see no difference between the communication.

I feel obligated to ask you, why did you feel obligated to bring this thread back from the dead?

I’m as much interested in learning from SD regs as I am interested in changing my POV, which is to say, not at all. Most people here, if they are being honest, will say the exact same thing. I myself have been guilty of teaching my ‘subject’ in the past, and I’ve found it to be a waste of time for both myself and those I was trying to instruct. No more. If people want to learn more about a particular area, they can go on wikipedia. It is insulting, I think, for equals (which, given anonymity, we all are) to condescend to each other without permission.

I have to disagree with you on that one Janto. At least personally the idea of being taught is something I like about SD. Although it is certainly no respite from bias, I’d suggest that impetus is always upon the receptive. As an off hand, I really enjoy your presence is socio-religio-polito talks involving the middle east. We don’t always have the same views, but you are far better informed then I am and that forces me to expand what I know about all sorts of things in order not only to be aware of the issues but enough so to form opinions and think critically of them.

We may not all frolic in perfect harmony, but the differences in our backgrounds and the attempt to educate, teach and generally try to convey our sense of things always seemed to me as the point of all this. I dare say it is even something we are relatively successful at.

Also I elect myself for the new high hog atheism. Pork and heathenism of course go hand in hand.

I have to disagree with you on that one Janto. At least personally the idea of being taught is something I like about SD. Although it is certainly no respite from bias, I’d suggest that impetus is always upon the receptive.

…

We may not all frolic in perfect harmony, but the differences in our backgrounds and the attempt to educate, teach and generally try to convey our sense of things always seemed to me as the point of all this. I dare say it is even something we are relatively successful at.

I have to agree with this. Looking for truly offbeat input into topics I know like the back of my hand from my own point of view, is why I come to SD in the first place. If I wish to debate the topic with other experts in the field, there are other, far more dedicated forums set up for precisely that purpose, and I know where all of them are.

Many times now, the average kong user’s input into an issue which I’ve always come at from the interested professional angle, has opened new windows which I would never have seen before. Even seemingly unrelated topics have provided fodder for new research directions, either now, or more often,l something to note down and get back to later on if things pan out as I’m expecting them to with present work.

I know I teach to people here a lot, and I enjoy that too. There aren’t a lot of opportunities for teaching in my current position; most of the work is geared round improving the technology and the patient’s bonding with that tehnology. So it is nice to come in here, and try to educate on the operating system of the human body when the chance arises. At the same time, its solidifying my own knowledge on some occasions, and on others, helping me make it more understandable to others.

If even one other winds up using some of that in their own research, whether formal or simply as part of basic education, than that effort is all worthwhile.

I sincerely doubt I am the only person using SD as a means to bounce ideas around and try and obtain a different point of view.

I’m here to share and test my views, to see things from another perspective, and to debate for the sake of debating. I don’t really care much for “converting” one side to my beliefs anymore, though I do admit I still try on occasion. I do not keep a closed mind, as Janton assumes. In fact, I formed many of my current opinions from being proved wrong on this forum.

I sincerely doubt I am the only person using SD as a means to bounce ideas around and try and obtain a different point of view.

Ah yes, your raison d’etre for being here. To ‘obtain a different point of view’ that you can conjure up as bigotry towards your subject. If I acted as you did, vika, I would do a long spiel about islamic politics, and then, when someone came along – like ungzeifer, for example – and disagreed, I’d immediately turn around and begin psychoanalyzing him on his irrational hatred toward muslims – all for the purposes of good research, of course.

You’ve said on many occasions that your goal here is to elicit an emotional response in order to gain insight into whatever sociological obstacles might be widespread enough to hinder your…unique viewpoints. There is a word that sums that up quite nicely: trolling. You put a clean, clinical smock on it, but it amounts to the same thing. I used to think it was very strange how a troll like vanguarde would develop such an OCD obsession with you in particular, but I’ve figured it out: you outfoxed him so well at his own game that he became weirdly fascinated. A lesson learned at a hard price, perhaps.

I do not keep a closed mind, as Janton assumes. In fact, I formed many of my current opinions from being proved wrong on this forum.

Name one occasion. The only time I’ve had cause to change my views on here is when i’ve come up against an opinion so unshakeable, so logically defying, that I change a previously apathetic opinion to the opposite of theirs. For example, I’ve become quite the luddite since engaging so extensively with vika’s opinions.

You don’t post much anymore, John. I do remember one time fairly recently when you claimed that the current thread discussion proceeding was shit and then tried to backtrack from that. Recently I see you got into a rather acrimonious debate where your opponent used Men in Black 3 and lots of bold-script to make his point.

If you do indeed keep an open mind, and aren’t just here to practice your debate skills – which is quite all right; these days I only make long posts to practice my rhetorical cunning – I’d submit that your mind is too open. I took the briefest skim through that life after death thread and even I could tell your opponent was an idiot, with nothing to be gained by the discussion except to troll him or, as i’ve said, to cement your own views on the subject.

People just tend to insult people over the internet because they feel that nothing could possibly happen to them (unless you happen to hurt a hacker’s feelings enough. Then you’re screwed.) Religion is no different. Just go on youtube, type something about US politics or religion, and just look at the crap poeple try to say.

Oh and don’t forget the boredem. ESPECIALLY the boredom.

Anyhow, I more or less discuss because I usually feel insulted (See punisher’s b) and astounded on just how stupid people sound when they try to tell me that I’m an idiot and don’t believe in science/math (I am not overstating this) despite the fact that science and math are still part of the Catholic School Board’s Curriculum (And most likely every other religious school that has access to math and science).

If you cannot come up with an argument that doesn’t revolve around attempts to insult other posters Janton, why bother to post at all? If as you are saying, your mind is set in stone, and nothing anyone ever says will change your views on anything, why come to a debate forum at all?

Meanwhile, whatever you choose to call it, I’ll continue to collect and examine different viewpoints on subjects posted here, for any relevant information I can use.

@Camoraz: Yes, the diminished focus given to the core sciences by a slowly increasing number of schools, particularly those in the US and the third world, is a problem that will eventually need to be addressed. However, no solution to that issue is going to be particularly easy to implement, nor I suspect, satisfactory to all concerned.

I came here to play games and piss people off.
I don’t like games anymore.
Also, if I were to profile all you posters it will be like this.
Mytie:- Thinks his country and his POV is always right , no matter how much evidence to the contrary.
Jhco :- Gun totting but not so war mongering ’merican.
Karmakool:- A child who can not spell.
Jantonitis:- Takes pleasure in insulting others and also thinks of himself as better than others.
Vika:- Amoral mad scientist, will possibly start the judgement day.

If you cannot come up with an argument that doesn’t revolve around attempts to insult other posters Janton, why bother to post at all? If as you are saying, your mind is set in stone, and nothing anyone ever says will change your views on anything, why come to a debate forum at all?

Meanwhile, whatever you choose to call it, I’ll continue to collect and examine different viewpoints on subjects posted here, for any relevant information I can use.

Well, I’ve thought about that, and partly Camoraz has it down – I enjoy ridiculing the creationist retards as much as you do. And, partly because there’s no reason I can’t simply find someone challenging and intelligent, who has posted on a thread I follow, and debate via shouts or PMs, sidestepping the whole nonsense altogether. After all, if I know someone will take the time to give a damn about what I say, then I may as well say it; otherwise there’s little point.

So, this, what we’re doing here, now, would fall under the former premise. It’s a pissing contest. I’ve already sent an actual response to ung’s counter-argument, so unless john comes up with a credible example of a time he changed his mind, that’s how it’ll stay…until you or I get bored, of course. After all, you’ve screwed me over too many times for me to change my mind over your behavior in SD, and it’s unlikely you’ll accept my opinion, so, here we are.

Jantonitis:- Takes pleasure in insulting others and also thinks of himself as better than others.

Well, of course I am. I’m an elitist. It’s one thing I have in common with the hipsters. Most people here, I surmise, are also elitists…or perhaps counter-elitists like jhco or mytie (debatable whether that’s something different or just a different branch of the same thing). Of course, SDers are elitist in different ways. Some don’t know it, but everything they say suggests otherwise. Some know it and pretend otherwise; they enjoy the paradoxical feeling of being humble and arrogant at the same time. I imagine you, punisher, feel yourself elitist simply for being in an English forum where you can cogently-ish tell us Westerners to piss off. Different strokes.

When I joined the forum I was 13. I was cynical, conservative, and an asshole. I would say I have changed quite a bit. I would rather not link to my post from then, as I would prefer they remain buried forever.

I do remember one time fairly recently when you claimed that the current thread discussion proceeding was shit and then tried to backtrack from that.

I admit that wasn’t my greatest day. I still hold that everything beforehand was shit.

If you do indeed keep an open mind, and aren’t just here to practice your debate skills – which is quite all right; these days I only make long posts to practice my rhetorical cunning – I’d submit that your mind is too open. I took the briefest skim through that life after death thread and even I could tell your opponent was an idiot, with nothing to be gained by the discussion except to troll him or, as i’ve said, to cement your own views on the subject.

If you noticed, I already provided my rational for debating him in my posts. I was trying to force him to consider his own opinions. Someone had done a similar thing to me when I first entered the forums, and I wasn’t much better then as zombies is now. It didn’t work too well.

@Camoraz: Yes, the diminished focus given to the core sciences by a slowly increasing number of schools, particularly those in the US and the third world, is a problem that will eventually need to be addressed. However, no solution to that issue is going to be particularly easy to implement, nor I suspect, satisfactory to all concerned.

I said that? I pointed out how atheists who are affected by GIFT often call theists stupid, claiming that theists don’t know/reject science (and occasionally math, wierdly enough). Which is entirely false (unless Ive been attending a public secondary school that’s only masquerading as a Catholic secondary school. And I think I would have noticed that). There IS a focus on science and math in Catholic schools.

Unless, of course, youre just referring to all schools in general and I misinterpretted. If so, ignore what I just said.

EDIT: And holy shit what am I doing, I have exams to study for. No more replying for me.

If that’s not what you meant Camoraz, then it’s my misinterpretation, not yours. I was referring to the decline in math and the sciences in general, where science and in some cases math itself, is seen as an optional subject to pursue, and one the kids don’t need to have, to graduate. As such, there is an increasing pool of youngsters, whether atheist or theist it makes no difference, who simply have not been taught the fundamental concepts required, to understand how the world around them works.

This leaves them little option but to fall back on superstition and heresay for an understanding of how various things function. An ignorant atheist is no different from an ignorant theist, if they have not covered the basics.

An example of those who are truly getting it wrong, would include the Texan school board, and their continued press to have their own religious views taught as equal to scientific studies in highschools. There is nothing wrong with religion, so long as it stays a matter of faith, and does not try to become a matter of fact.

Jantonitis:- Takes pleasure in insulting others and also thinks of himself as better than others.

Well, of course I am. I’m an elitist. It’s one thing I have in common with the hipsters. Most people here, I surmise, are also elitists…or perhaps counter-elitists like jhco or mytie (debatable whether that’s something different or just a different branch of the same thing). Of course, SDers are elitist in different ways. Some don’t know it, but everything they say suggests otherwise. Some know it and pretend otherwise; they enjoy the paradoxical feeling of being humble and arrogant at the same time. I imagine you, punisher, feel yourself elitist simply for being in an English forum where you can cogently-ish tell us Westerners to piss off. Different strokes.

Went over my head,
Also I don’t have any bias against westreners in general I only hate people who try to shove thier Ideologies down my throat, I hate such people, period.
Also, your last sentence exibits your arrogance which I mentioned above.

I discarded science and math when they were no longer necessary to graduate. Like Camoraz, I came from a Catholic background. Unlike Camoraz, I discarded Catholicism when it was no longer necessary to keep up appearances. How’d that happen?

Obviously, science and math are not the keys to enlightenment – not for everyone, anyway. It isn’t the lack of science and math that keeps people stuck on superstition, it’s the ideological reinforcement. I’m not a Catholic…but I am a deist. Couldn’t discard the whole bag and tricks, as it were. Would knowledge of science and math make it any better? I doubt it. I know deism is irrational. Knowing more about the big bang wouldn’t change my view of a pseudo-creationist universe. I’m aware of the theory of course; it just doesn’t matter to me. And, given that it’s fairly hard to teach about a Prime Mover in any meaningful fashion (except through Hoyle, perhaps), it really doesn’t make any difference.

Those who push science and math do so because they attained their insights through science and math. They can’t comprehend that their are other paths by which one can discard most superstition – superstition which threatens the public good, anyway. Or they do understand it, but they dismiss it, because, as I say, one doesn’t get rid of one’s upbringing entirely, not without a nice justification to treat it with contempt.

Ideology is the problem. Science and math are fine; they just aren’t the only route to logic. The social sciences teach logic as well, but more importantly, they teach that there are no pat answers – in superstition OR math and sciences. I’m a deist because science and math haven’t disproven pascal’s wager, just scorned it. Ideologies have built-in defense mechanisms to protect their initiates from competing ideas. Above all they rely on dismissing other ideas as not worth attending to, or in setting up elaborate myths that cement their dislike into something feasible, ie. religious moderates shield extremists from public scrutiny, science and math are the foundation for a well-ordered mind, gun-nuts want to start a revolution, gun-grabbers want to surrender their rights to world gov’t, etc.

Obviously, science and math are not the keys to enlightenment – not for everyone, anyway. It isn’t the lack of science and math that keeps people stuck on superstition, it’s the ideological reinforcement.

That wasn’t my point. Science and math should not be used as tools to try and disprove theology. Doing that is like trying to use a hammer to make precise cuts in wood – good luck with that one. Rather a good grounding in math is necessary to form a basic scaffold for understanding how our world is put together. Building on top of that you have the sciences, each of which specialises in a different aspect of our world, again explaining how everything works, and why it works that way.

You don’t even have to go to great depths into them. Even highschool-level physics, chemistry, biology are enough to give you the basic underpinnings from which to make informed choices about how everything in our world functions on a physical level.

As usual, the problem comes when you try to wield them as weapons to attack a particular belief system with. They were never meant for that purpose. Both are tools of discovery, not political or ideological weapons. At best you can correct a system of belief when it starts to claim things that are physically impossible – by showing that church exactly why they are physically impossible, and what options are possible within the rules we know and understand. This gives them a chance to improve their own faith, by discounting the paths that we know are pure bullshit, and concentrate on the paths that are still open to them. If anything, this knowledge helps them see the path, by knowing which options our universe, regardless of who created it, simply was not built to allow.

Science will never explain everything, its very methodological, structured line of reasoning prevents it being used to go down some avenues. That’s why its not the only tool in the toolbox.

Religion likewise will get nowhere if it tries to ‘disprove’ science. It cannot, for the exact same reason. The two are very different tools for very different purposes. You are making the classic mistake that the two are somehow interchangable when they are not. One is a hammer, the other is a saw. Neither can replace the other, and we need both if we’re going to build anything of any complexity.

And…my point was that science and math aren’t necessary as a basic scaffolding. Science and math were gruntwork exercises that i suffered through until it was over. I doubt I was alone among the semi-rational non-scientist bunch. post-modernist theory and rhetorical logic taught me everything I needed on that front.

Then the way they were taught to you, was the problem, not the tools themselves. Every tool you reject because you find it ‘difficult’ or ‘boring’ is one less tool you have to work with. Greatly simplifying what you an create.

It comes down, yet again, to the education system, and trying to make every subject both compelling and tailored to every individual.

Even if you never use the basic knowledge again, you have been instilled with the ability to use multiple different mindsets to explore any problem with. The way of thinking each different subject requires, never leaves you, and your brain builds on all of them, should they go in at a young enough age. You end up being able to think critically in any of them at any given time, and the possibilities expand considerably for each individual then.

How that individual then uses the tools provided, is entirely up to them. Every path is open, and you’re free to choose. If you go on to be the next great prophet, then you do so equipped with as many ways of working with the world as it was possible to gift upon you – which is what the true goal of a pure education system always is.

So you’re saying that because the way I was taught math and science was inadequate…is the reason I don’t like it. That reminds me of an old priest I had in high school who argued that I stay Catholic on the grounds that just because the Church was presented to me improperly doesn’t mean it’s all bad.

And yet I still understand logic as well as anyone, and don’t force my faith into people’s faces.

Here’s another theory: Science and math are not basic building blocks for everyone. There are other foundational paths available, ones which, among other advantages, don’t demand a rigid adherence to x philosophy, which you would prefer not to recognize as equal because to do so would radically alter your viewpoints. I’d bet there are plenty of activist creationists who had a well-rounded science and math education and chose their path on the basis that those disciplines came out of lies concocted by the devil – the current popular belief for the existence of fossils.

You claim to embrace embrace interdisciplinarianism (multiple different mindsets), but I rejected it in the social sciences for the same reason I reject it now: in both cases, it’s not really cross-discipline; you still stay in the family, there’s merely the illusion that you’ve become broad-minded. There’s very VERY few examples of truly cross-discipline people who merged Science and Arts together…I can count them on one hand.

What I find odd is that for someone in the sciences, the idea that people have different brains and take up different disciplines accordingly, is so problematic for you. I had fine science and math teachers, very instructive. I despised the entire canon anyway. Conversely, when I studied rhetoric, I was the only person in my class of thirty who didn’t find it dull and useless – and every one of them were Arts students. Different strokes.

I completely reject the idea that critical thinking arises from the math and sciences. Historically it doesn’t even make sense, and frankly, I didn’t even realize people believed in that at all until fairly recently, and still can’t completely wrap my head around the notion.

Where I live in, many atheists think that religious are just stupid, but well, they never say it in face to face.

On the internet, they’re like “stupid religious”
And, in real life "Well, you’ve got the right to be religious, no problem’.

Do you know, it’s the dardnest thing! I find your post absolutely idiotic! No, I’m just being elitist for saying it; you are a goddamn moron in every respect! Thank you, for stating the obvious! very good! I imagine i shall now thank karma for spelling badly, in order to show the people what’s for!

Do you know, it’s the darndest thing! you niggers get upset, then complain about it! How incredible for moses – i mean – Aurelius! Wow! How unoriginal a title! Forgive me, i don’t want to appear that your entire election is a goddamn fraud.

Hey, do you like games? So do we — that’s what makes Kongregate the best source of free games online. We have thousands upon thousands of free online games, from both one-man indies and large studios, rated and filtered so you can play the best of the best. Read more »